Federal Judge James Donato has run out of patience with Google. In a pointed San Francisco courtroom exchange this week, he declared one part of the company’s latest compliance proposal unacceptable. “That is not acceptable,” Donato said of the friction still baked into installing rival app stores on Android devices. “That has to be fixed.”
The ruling stems from Epic Games’ hard-fought antitrust victory. A jury found Google maintained an illegal monopoly over Android app distribution three years ago. Donato’s original 2024 injunction required Google to let third-party stores appear inside the Play Store itself and grant them access to its vast catalog of apps. The Associated Press reported at the time that the judge aimed to tear down the digital walls shielding Google’s store from competition.
Google fought the order. It appealed. It tried to settle with Epic. Those efforts produced a proposed Registered App Stores program that would ease sideloading globally without forcing rivals into the Play Store. But when Donato signaled he would not approve the deal, both sides walked away in July 2026. Ars Technica explained that Google then had no choice but to follow the court’s stricter remedies in the United States.
Implementation began unevenly. On July 22 Google published its rules and fees for rival stores. They must demonstrate reasonable security practices, include user safety features, and supply copies of their APKs for Google to review before users can download them. The first result arrived earlier this month. Aptoide, a Portugal-based distributor that once thrived on sideloading, returned to the Play Store after more than a decade. Its games-focused storefront now sits alongside Google’s own offering.
Users in the United States can find it without the usual scary warnings that accompany sideloading. They search or browse a new third-party app stores section. They tap install. The experience mirrors downloading any other app. Aptoide gains access to nearly the entire Play catalog — 1.9 million apps and 295,000 games — unless individual developers opt out. Paulo Trezentos, Aptoide’s CEO and co-founder, called the moment significant. In a statement carried by multiple outlets he said the change opens a new chapter for competition on Android.
Yet the rollout left Donato unimpressed. During the Aug. 13 hearing Epic’s lawyer Yonatan Even ran a live demonstration. Searching the Play Store for “store for apps” returned results for physical retail locations. Walmart appeared. “Wait, why did Walmart come up?” Donato asked. “That’s not good.” He demanded every reasonable variation of search terms that could lead users to rival stores, even phrasing that might be only 70 percent accurate. The extra “view” button users must press before seeing an “install” option also had to go. The Verge captured the judge’s blunt language from inside the courtroom.
Google’s lawyers agreed to revise their approach on the spot. The company now faces tighter deadlines to reduce those remaining barriers. The changes build on remedies that already lowered developer fees in some cases and allowed alternative billing systems. They also prohibit Google from paying developers to favor the Play Store exclusively or from striking revenue-sharing deals with device makers that lock in its dominance.
The stakes extend far beyond one storefront. Android powers billions of devices worldwide. Google’s 30 percent commission on many in-app purchases once generated enormous revenue. The Epic case exposed how the company used its control of the operating system and pre-installation agreements to protect that income. Lowering barriers for stores like Aptoide, and potentially Epic’s own gaming storefront or offerings from Microsoft, could shift some of that money elsewhere.
Developers stand to gain choice. They can distribute through multiple channels without losing access to Google’s catalog. They can avoid the full 30 percent cut in certain scenarios under the new fee structure. But success for rival stores will depend on discovery. Right now the third-party section sits somewhat buried in the Play Store interface. If users never see it, the practical impact shrinks.
Security remains a live concern. Google has long argued that unrestricted sideloading exposes users to malware. The court-approved program requires rival stores to meet baseline standards and share their APK files for review. Google insists it does not examine every individual app. Still, the oversight gives the company a measure of control even as it opens its platform. Whether that balance satisfies Donato long-term will shape the next phase of enforcement.
Aptoide’s early entry offers a glimpse of what competition might look like. The company serves more than 25 million monthly active users globally and claims the United States as its largest single market. Its return after years of operating on the fringes signals that other players may follow. Epic, which triggered the entire case by trying to sell Fortnite directly on Android, has every incentive to expand its own distribution options.
Analysts and industry watchers have followed these twists for years. The original jury verdict in late 2023, the appeals court affirmation, the aborted settlement, and now this latest judicial nudge all point in one direction. Android’s app distribution model is becoming less centralized. Not overnight. Not completely. But the trend is clear.
Donato’s latest order does not rewrite the three-year duration of the core injunction, which runs through late 2027. It does, however, tighten the screws on execution. Google must make rival stores as easy to discover and install as its own. Search must work. Buttons must simplify. The experience cannot favor the incumbent.
TechCrunch noted that Aptoide’s move credits the exact policy shifts courts have demanded. Its coverage highlighted how the Play Catalog Access Program, launched in June, lets competitors pull from Google’s library while operating independently. The result is more choice for users who want it. And more pressure on Google to innovate rather than rely on its default position.
Device makers could also benefit. The remedies bar Google from blocking them from pre-installing alternative stores. That freedom, combined with easier discovery inside the Play Store, could accelerate experimentation on new handsets.
Of course Google will continue to argue that its approach protects users. It will point to the security reviews and the careful rollout. Yet the judge has made his view plain. Friction that looks designed to steer users back to the Play Store violates the spirit of the remedy. And he expects that friction removed.
The coming weeks will show how quickly Google can adjust its search algorithms, update its user flows, and surface rival stores more prominently. If it drags its feet, further hearings seem likely. Donato has already demonstrated he will call the company out directly.
For the Android world this marks a modest but real shift. Users who never considered anything but the Play Store may now stumble across alternatives. Developers may test new distribution strategies. Rival store operators may invest more aggressively knowing the path to users has widened.
It is early. Only one store has arrived so far. The menu remains tucked away. But the legal momentum favors openness. And judges rarely soften their tone once they have labeled a proposal unacceptable.
Google’s next submission to the court will reveal whether it has absorbed the message. The rest of the mobile industry will be watching closely.